Low-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy and Risk of Emergency Department Visits for Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who visit the emergency department (ED) because of asthma frequently have a relapse. While the use of inhaled corticosteroids has been demonstrated to improve asthma symptoms and lung function, it is not clear whether their use after discharge from the ED reduces asthma relapse rates. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether inhaled corticosteroid therapy reduces ED asthma relapse rates. METHODS: We analyzed ED visit and medication data on patients 5 to 60 years of age who were enrolled in a government-sponsored drug plan and who visited an ED because of asthma between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 1999, in Alberta, Canada (N = 1293). Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we determined the relative risk (RR) of relapse ED visits among users and nonusers of inhaled corticosteroids after discharge from the ED. We also compared the RR of relapse ED visits across different dose categories. RESULTS: Users of inhaled corticosteroids after ED discharge had 45% fewer relapse ED visits than did nonusers (adjusted RR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.69). Low-, medium-, and high-dose therapies were associated with similar reductions in the risk of relapse ED visits: low-dose therapy (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.68), medium-dose therapy (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76), and high-dose therapy (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled corticosteroid therapy after ED discharge is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of subsequent ED visits. Low-dose therapy appears to be as effective as high-dose therapy. However, further studies are needed to determine the optimal dosing regimen for inhaled corticosteroid therapy for asthma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".